From Reuters, under the headline “Catholic politicians must oppose gay marriage: Pope”:
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – The Church’s opposition to gay marriage is “non-negotiable” and Catholic politicians have a moral duty to oppose it, as well as laws on abortion and euthanasia, Pope Benedict said in a document issued on Tuesday.
In a 140-page booklet on the workings of a synod that took place at the Vatican in 2005 on the theme of the Eucharist, the 79-year-old German Pope also re-affirmed the Catholic rule of celibacy for priests.
In the “Apostolic Exhortation” Benedict says all believers had to defend what he calls fundamental values but that the duty was “especially incumbent” for those in positions of power.
He said these included “respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built on marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms.”
“These values are not negotiable,” he said.
There are hundreds of similar articles in the mainstream media today, mostly focusing on the Pope’s “not negotiable” opposition to same-sex marriage. ((Why are so many reporters using the phrase “non negotiable,” when the official text of the statement says “not negotiable”? It’s a mystery. Anyhow, here’s the relevant paragraph, quoted from the Vatican’s website:
Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms (230). These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature (231). There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them (232).
)) I’ve also seen some mentioning his opposition to abortion, and one mentioning his opposition to divorce. But defending human life until “natural death” is pretty clearly an anti-death-penalty statement, and this too is (according to the Pope) “not negotiable.” Yet I’ve been searching in vain for a single news story pointing out that the Pope called opposition to the death penalty “not negotiable.”
This confirms to a general rule the mainstream media follows: Events that highlight a split between Catholic teaching and liberal policies are news, and are reported on prominently. In contrast, events that highlight a split between Catholic teaching and conservative policies are not reported on at all.
Then again, maybe the media silence is more truthful than the Pope’s statement. Despite what the Pope said, opposition to the death penalty is negotiable. Has there been a single case of a Bishop refusing communion to a politician — or to local activists — to object to their public support of the death penalty? Will the Church leadership criticize pro-death-penalty Catholic politicians with one-tenth the passion that they’ll devote to fighting same-sex marriage? Of course not. For the Pope — and for most right-wing Catholics — supporting discrimination against queers is much more important than opposing the death penalty.
There’s also a very notable omission from the Pope’s 140-page discussion; he doesn’t call on politicians to oppose torture, nor does he call for the Eurochrist Eucharist to be withheld from politicians who support torture, even though he must know that many prominent politicians have been pressing for laws to accommodate and support torture. In fact, Benedict didn’t mention torture at all. It’s not surprising that the Pope is such a moral coward when it comes to standing up to the right wing, but it is disappointing. ((Contrast Benedict’s silence on torture this week to the words of the Second Vatican Council:
Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator.
))
So maybe the media has it right after all.
Pingback: IST Control Center
The “Eurochrist”? What’s that, Jesus with slicked-back hair, fashionable slacks, riding a Vespa and saying “ciao, baby”?
It’s actually the miracle of the Eurochrist that transsubstantiates espresso and biscotti into the blood and body of Christ.
Kidding aside, you’re also pretty off base in your working assumptions regarding the pontiff. Benedict has been a vigorous and staunch opponent of the death penalty and torture for many years, regularly opining and arguing against both.
The “natural end” of life statement isn’t simply related to the Church’s opinion on the death penalty, it is a reaffirmation of the Church’s position on euthanasia, a political hot button issue as well. And this is an area where your theorem — which I’d generally agree with — doesn’t fully hold, because the “conservative” position on euthanasia is split. The more libertarian conservatives are much more accepting of euthanasia on the “it’s a private matter and suffering should not be legally required” angle while the more right wing “all life is sacred regardless” types are in line with the Church.
That said, I’m not sure why this is getting so much play in the press at all. There was nothing new in this proclamation, if anything the Church is becoming more stalwart in its long-held positions and that’s exactly what was expected with the election of Pope Benedict. There’s no surprise here and unless you’re a Catholic, really, no news.
Actually, I suspect that Dreama’s point, that requiring support for natural death is a non-issue in the press because it is too complicated, both pro-conservative (anti-euthanasia) and anti-conservative (anti-death penalty) is the reason it didn’t get much coverage. If the Pope had specifically mentioned the death penalty or torture as things that Catholics must oppose, that would make the news, but natural death is too obscure and politically contradictory a term to make an easy news scroll 1 liner out of.
I’ve got to ask about this “natural death” thing…If someone has “died”* of VTach or VFib and is successfully rescussitated, is it then ok to kill them because they’ve already experienced “natural death”? Is CPR, ACLS, and so on immoral because it reverses natural death? What does the pope think that natural death means anyway?
*That is, had their heart stop pumping, their breathing stop, and their brain function stop. All of which is sometimes reversible with the right equipment, but none of which is ever reversed naturally.
Well, if that’s the case, then good for Benedict! But I think that just goes to prove my first point (even as it disproves my second point): The press does a lousy job of reporting on cases in which the Pope disagrees with conservatives, even as it does a bang-up job of highlighting cases in which the Pope disagrees with liberals.
So, Robert: Do you think we’ll see as much passion and activism from the Church authorities — including denying communion to politicians who disagree with the Church’s “not negotiable” position — against the death penalty as we will see against gay marriage, in the coming years?
“Eurochrist.”
Hee hee.
So, Robert: Do you think we’ll see as much passion and activism from the Church authorities — including denying communion to politicians who disagree with the Church’s “not negotiable” position — against the death penalty as we will see against gay marriage, in the coming years?
To a degree, yes, if you look at the proper church authorities. You won’t see a lot of death penalty agitation coming from Europe, for example, for the pretty good reason that they don’t have it there anymore (mostly). You also won’t see a lot of it in the developing world, for the also pretty good reason that when thousands are dying from dysentery, there are focuses more urgent than three guys on death row. Watch the American church, and you will see plenty of sustained activity on the topic.
That said, why should the level of agitation and effort be commensurate? The two questions (besides being somewhat unrelated topically) also have widely varying social impact. The death penalty, at bottom, is about a relative handful of people. Marriage affects nearly everyone.
Dreama’s on the right track. The MSM doesn’t do complicates, generally, it does soundbites. Any issue that can’t be reduced to easily regurgiated soundbites tends to be overlooked and covered weakly if at all, and the Catholic stance on “natural death” is complicated in the extreme. There’s also the fact that abortion is more of a hot-button issue than the death penalty in the US.
I hope Robert’s right that Benedict actually does care about the death penalty, although honestly I’m hoping he keeps quiet about euthanasia. If he does start talking about that more openly then you’ll see more detailed coverage in Europe.
for the also pretty good reason that when thousands are dying from dysentery, there are focuses more urgent than three guys on death row.
Thousands–actually, millions– of people in the third world (and first world and probably second world if anyone knows what the heck that is) are dying of HIV related diseases. But not only does the Church not consider focusing on prevention of HIV important, it actively tries to prevent HIV control through sex ed and condom distribution. Not to mention the thousands of women it dooms to death from unsafe abortions and childbirth by preventing access to safe abortions. Which is why I have a hard time taking the Pope’s supposed dedication to life very seriously.
Pingback: Jewess » Blog Roundup: Emergency Contraception, Food Art, Tefillin on Women
Until natural death isn’t really long enough, actually. I think we should not disrespect human life until unconception, which is when a person is totally forgotten about (which makes it impossible to ever disrespect a human life).
I want to read that as teh funny sarcasm, but it’s written by the egg&sperm fetishist, so is it serious?
Watch out, all of you! We may, on other blogs, as we speak, be disrespecting a host of historical and mytho-historical figures.
Sup with the term “disrespect” in this context, anyway? We mustn’t diss the dead? Pulling the euthanasia plug is too much like refusing to “get offa [the affected person’s] lawn?” It’s okay to abort fetuses as long as we do it with reverent faces?
Wow, is the benefit ratio really 2:1 for women to men? More ammo for Sim’s theory, I guess.
Woops, wrong thread.
Dianne,
It is disingenuous to say that the Catholic Church doesn’t consider HIV prevention important. They simply consider a concession to condom usage a greater long-term harm than the current epidemic and believe that it can be curbed by education.
As for abortion, when you consider that the Church’s position is that life begins at conception, the thousands of women who die from unsafe abortions cannot be compared to the millions of lives ended from the practice itself.
To focus on a few issues that are entirely consistent with the mission and teachings of the Church deliberately overlooks the immense time and effort the Church has spent on social justice issues all over the world.
But then again most people only see what they look for.
Amp,
I don’t think it is fair to call the Pope a “moral coward” either. It is not the Pope’s job to “stand up to the [American] right-wing”. Both Benedict and JPII were vocal against the war in Iraq and against torture.
The underlying premise of this discussion is wrong. Ampersand takes the phrase “to natural death” and then concludes that this phrase makes death penalty not negotiable to Pope Benedict. Like all brilliant thinkers, Benedict speaks very precisely. Thus, it is likely he would have listed death penalty if he meant it.
But more importantly, and to the point, here is what Pope Benedict said on the precise issue being discussed:
“While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
The mainstream media has not missed a story.
He said that before he was pope. Nonetheless, point well taken.
Pingback: Hanlon’s Theatre: Pat Buchanan is a drooling moron | Hanlon's Razor